Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered?

On 26/11/2012 20:29, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Agreed. We would register it immediately as historical.

Is this strictly true?  After all, doesn't XMPP still require use of 
jabber:client or jabber:server as namespaces for stanzas in XMPP streams?

My original email cited an out-of-date RFC, but I did check back later:
[[
    Definition of XML Stanza:  An XML stanza is the basic unit of meaning
       in XMPP.  A stanza is a first-level element (at depth=1 of the
       stream) whose element name is "message", "presence", or "iq" and
       whose qualifying namespace is 'jabber:client' or 'jabber:server'.
]]
-- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120#section-4.1

In light of this, my take is that jabber: is a current but very limited URI 
scheme, defining just two URIs (jabber:server and jabber:client) for use in XMPP 
streams.  No other URIs or uses for this scheme are sanctioned.

#g
--

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-4
>
> On 11/26/12 1:27 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>> Looping the XMPP wg list.  If we register it, let's make sure that
>> registration says "DO NOT USE IN THE FUTURE".
>>
>> On 11/26/12 11:50 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/26/12 9:37 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> On 2012-11-26 16:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/25/12 5:04 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>>>>> I've just been digging around the XMPP specs, and I notive they
>>>>>> make reference to required namespaces of the form "jabber:client"
>>>>>> and "jabber:server" (cf.
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3920#section-11.2, esp sect 11.2.2).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Examples in sections 8 and 9 of that spec reinforce the indication
>>>>>> that jabber: is being used as a URI scheme (rather than a namespace
>>>>>> prefix).
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'jabber:' string was used in the earliest days of the jabberd
>>>>> server project when the core developers didn't really understand XML
>>>>> namespaces (which were quite new at the time). It is not a URI scheme,
>>>>> just a mistake. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>> But looking at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html I'm
>>>>>> not seeing any mention of jabber:.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming I'm reading this right... it's probably unfortunate that
>>>>>> that this use of jabber: has come about (like dav: before it?) but
>>>>>> I guess it's now entrenched and should at least be registered?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have never registered it and I hesitate to do so now because I think
>>>>> it would cause more confusion than it's worth. We do have the 'xmpp:'
>>>>> URI scheme for pointing to JabberIDs.
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I think it would still be good to have it in the registry, and have the
>>>> documentation explain what's going on.
>>>>
>>>> I believe the "DAV:" scheme was created for the same purpose, and we
>>>> have documented that in
>>>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#rfc.section.21.1>.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the pointer. And yes, as with "DAV:", the "jabber:" prefix
>>> was defined before standard best practices emerged for XML namespaces...
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Saint-Andre
>>> https://stpeter.im/
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> apps-discuss mailing list
>>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>